Is the how important? Isn't enough for everyone to "know" he cheated?Brady completed 19 consecutive passes last night. This is so statistically unlikely it is pretty much 'proof' that he cheated. Not sure HOW he cheated, but we're pretty sure he did. We'll figure out the 'how' though...
Only enough if your name is Roger Goodell. If anyone doubts the bias in that man's mind just look how he jumped from the asinine conclusion of the Wells Report ("more probable than not and generally aware" to the language he used in his denial of Brady's appeal and I paraphrase "he conspired with, directed etc." And if the NFL lawyers's gave him those words they should get fired as well. BTW born and raised A NY Giant fan and last night was painful.
It really is amazing to me how poorly the NFL office legal advice has been in this and other recent situations. They do not appear to understand very basic concepts in labor law and arbitration law. Their actions imply that they think 'Article #46' of their CBA exists in some legal vacuum outside the control of Federal law or the US Constitution.
Hearing Goodell a few days ago on Mike & Mike where he "addressed" losing at the first level and how they have won the Clarett case when they kicked it up to the 3 judge panel. I never read the original decision nor paid any attention to the rational the full court used in overruling the first guy. That said in the Brady case Berman was so precise in his reasoning for reject the NFL citing any number of precedents. I would frankly be more stunned by a reversal than I would have been if he upheld the NFL. If ever you needed a glowing example of ineptitude look no further than the idiot who bang ed the head of a player into his helmet and got off with a $35K fine, a little higher than they have fined players for uniform "violations"
The Clarett case was also a very different beast - the league was being sued over its rules for player eligibility to be drafted/hired and was a full-on trial with the weighing of evidence. This is a different beast and one the NFL actually doesn't want to win (when calmer heads prevail.) If they win, it goes back to Berman to determine the issues he did not bother to take up - namely the actions of the commissioner as arbitrator and whether he was evidently partial. Should he rule on those three arguments in Brady's favor, it will more clearly destroy Goodell's ability to act as arbitrator in any future case than the current ruling does.
Wish I had a better legal background. I thought it was settled law that Berman could only review the Brady appeal based not on the facts of the case (were the balls really deflated and did Brady and/or NE staff conspire to deflate the balls) but only on the process the NFL had underhandedly abused to create a punishable behavior by Brady. Finding that the abuse had indeed happened Berman vacated the suspension and cited case law for each of the three elements he believed the NFL had violated. Frankly I thought the presentation before the Appeal's panel would either uphold Berman's ruling or reverse it and reinstate the suspension. Got any reasonable lawyers out here to help us through the morass known as Goodell and the NFL.
Yes - Berman could not rule on the evidence of deflation and or conspiracy, and all he ruled on were basic tenets of labor law - but he also left three arguments in Brady's appeal undecided, having already found two causes to vacate. Typically if an appeals court overrules a lower court judge they send it back to that court to correct the ruling and in this case to take up the other arguments. This is not the same as a criminal jury trial being overthrown on appeal.